Events Widget

Discussion: What makes a sponsor incompatible with our program?

A WordCamp organizing team has requested to drop a global community sponsor from their 2018 event because the company hosts some websites owned by hate groups. This is the first request of its kind for the community team, and I thought it merited a group discussion.

I understand that WordCamp organizers, speakers, sponsors, and volunteers are expected to support the WordPress project and its principles.

I understand that the principles of the WordPress project include:

no discrimination on the basis of economic or social status, race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, creed, religion, political belief, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, age, or disability

no incitement to violence or promotion of hate

no spammers

no jerks

respect the WordPress trademark

embrace the WordPress license; if distributing WordPress-derivative works (themes, plugins, WP distros), any person or business officially associated with WordCamp should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides: 100% GPL or compatible, the same guidelines we follow on WordPress.org.

don’t promote companies or people that violate the trademark or distribute WordPress derivative works which aren’t 100% GPL compatible

Our goal is to work with sponsors that share the values of our community. We are mindful of the behavior of sponsors, organizers, speakers, and other volunteers, but we don’t examine every decision that a company or individual makes.

Sometimes sponsors make unpopular business decisions. Is there a point at which we might decide to exclude a sponsor because of a business policy or practice that is not addressed by our list of expectations?

Phrased in another way: beyond our current standards, are there additional reasons that businesses, groups, or people should not be accepted as WordPress community sponsors?

Please share your thoughts in a comment on this thread.

We’ll keep the discussion open for about 2 weeks, with the goal of closing comments by August 24.

First, thank you for facilitating this discussion. I do have strong opinions on this matter.

A hosting company, by hosting a website, is in the business of providing a platform that facilitates the dissemination of whatever is on the website. A hosted website is perhaps the most powerful and effective method for such dissemination ever developed. By accepting a website, a hosting company is helping the site’s owner, in a very powerful way, to accomplish its ends.

Clearly, the ends of a hate group are totally incompatible with the standards, expectations and values of the WordPress community as expressed on the make.wordpress.org website and in codes of conduct found on WordCamp websites and in WordPress Meetup groups.

If a hosting company accepts hate group websites, it is facilitating the spread of the hate messages that such groups publish. It is doing so in a way that few, if any, other methods can approach. I do not understand how such a company can be allowed to be a WordCamp sponsor. I do not understand how a company can say that they do not promote hate while providing a hate group with such a powerful tool for disseminating hateful messages. In doing so, they are promoting hate. They are violating our published expectations of a sponsor, and should not be allowed to sponsor as long as they continue to do so.

Wouldn’t hosting hate groups violate the “no promotion of hate” policy for sponsors? Hosting is providing a platform for the hate groups to amplify their messages and organize their events, like the Charlottsville event where a woman was run down and killed last year.

It is important for the WordPress community to take a stand and support the values we profess to embrace. Otherwise it makes our principles and code of conduct ring hollow. One of the best parts of being part of the WordPress community has been the atmosphere of respect that is fostered.

Many networks and news outlets drop sponsors because of issues related to the promotion of hate or racism. WordCamps should be able to do the same.

Thanks for brining it here to discuss. I agree with the above comments, but I’d like to know if hosts have a mechanism to discover a site that promotes hate or otherwise promotes content they would make a stand against? How would that work practically?

In this case, the hosting company under discussion has been notified by several people that hate groups are using its services. The company has been asked to stop doing business with those groups. Thus far, the company has declined to respond.

I think it would be a bit difficult for hosting companies to monitor all the websites they host. However, when others identify them as a host and notify them, the hosting companies should at the least respond to the complaints and preferably, take action.

Good points have been raised. I have questions about the code of conduct and the principles for sponsors then. If the community truly believes in free speech how does the wording of the code of conduct fit with that? Should some of the language be eliminated then? Should I be allowed to say whatever I want at a WordCamp, for example, in the name of free speech?

I agree that there is tension in the code of conduct between the values of free and democratic publishing, and prohibition of incitements to violence and hate speech. For me, the latter is the more important one.

We refuse to promote companies that violate the GPL. We should also refuse to promote companies that violate our code of anti-discrimination, and that violation should extend to allowing hate groups a hosting platform.

I feel we can discuss each case on its own merits, and I agree that hosting non-GPL software should not be disqualifying. There are WordCamp sponsors who – in addition to supporting open source software – sell non-GPL products. They can still sponsor, we just don’t allow them to promote those products at WordCamp.

I want to play devil’s advocate here, not because I disagree with the sentiment outlined in the comments above (I don’t), but because I think it’s important to consider both sides of the discussion.

If I run a WordPress plugin company that provides an eCommerce solution, and a hate group purchases my plugin to sell products to promote their ideals, does that mean that I cannot be a WordCamp sponsor?

If someone reported this hate group to me, I might decide to take a decision to withdraw their product license of my plugin, so that I show I do not support them. However without such a report, I have no idea how someone who purchases my plugin uses it.

As I understand it, most hosting companies have specific terms and conditions of what you can use their services for and if you are found in violation of these terms they reserve the right to remove you from their platform. However, to the best of my knowledge these hosting companies can only act on content reported to them, as legally they are not allowed to actively monitor any hosted content.

Perhaps as a community we could work to assist any such sponsors in reporting any content deemed hate speech, so that they can follow their process and, if found to be hate speech, remove said content. I’m sure they would appreciate our assistance.

All that being said, if a hosting company a) doesn’t promote a process to removing sites that are considered hate speech, based on the relevant guidelines governing website content and/or b) doesn’t follow this process if a website is reported to them, that is a different matter all together.

The SPLC has a list of about 1,000 hate groups in the US alone. And it is actually quite the controversial list. Not everyone agrees, that those listed are actually haters. How would a hosting company know who their client’s audience is? They are not the publisher and have editorial control.

I don’t think that a hosting company ‘distributes hate’ just by hosting propaganda groups’ websites. How many sites are left in obscurity because they don’t have an audience? We all know, there is a lot more to do to actually distribute content, than just putting up a website on a little server.

Should the phone company not be allowed to be a sponsor, because a leader of a hate group has a cell phone?

Some of the hardcopy material probably has a higher distribution, than some obscure website. Would you ban the paper maker from sponsoring a WordCamp, or the lumber company providing the wood to the paper maker? Or the ink manufacturer?

And why stop there?

Should WordPress take itself offline, because some fascist builds a site using the software? Isn’t that giving the those groups more power than they deserve? Should we ban all hosting companies to sponsor WordCamps, I am sure if you look hard enough, any one of them has some obscure site sitting around on the server?

Where is the demarkation line? I don’t have an answer to that.

I do know that the hosting company in question supports the Code of Conduct of WordPress WordCamps whole heartedly and has done so for many, many years all around the World. It is their support, that actually allows WordPress to spread the message of diversity and inclusion.

I was going to comment in the same spirit, but Birgit said everything I had to say, and far more eloquently.

Is there a point at which we might decide to exclude a sponsor because of a business policy or practice that is not addressed by our list of expectations?

For what it’s worth, “no discrimination…” and “no incitement to violence or promotion of hate” do perfectly fine for me.

I do believe there is value to gain for businesses (product or service) from reflecting their own policies regarding extremist cases in their customer base; and conversations with the non-extremist majority of their customers could help with that process.I don’t believe a “no, thank you” to an otherwise completely supportive sponsor would be a healthy way to spark those conversations.

Edit: After a lot more context has been provided via comments, I’m clearly realising the trap in the slippery slope argument when Nazis are part of the picture. Like Andrew (Norcross) five comments down the page, I believe local organisers should have a say in which sponsorships they accept, HOWEVER: This discussion CAN’t be about just DreamHost then.

Two out of six global Platinum Sponsors (currently sponsoring WordCamp Philly) are WooCommerce and Jetpack, owned by A8c, who in return own WordPress.com—which in return hosts sites like “New Order” who “hold this truth to be self-evident: that the United States of America was at its inception founded as a country of, by and for White people, regardless of what it has become or degenerated into today”, or “The National Socialist Archive” who see National Socialism as “the highest, most sophisticated, and advanced creed yet formulated by the White Man for his own betterment”.

Next on the list of global Platinum sponsors are Bluehost and GoDaddy, and while they don’t place a nifty branded footer on the websites they host, so it’s harder to find Nazi propaganda on their platforms, there still is a 100% chance they host a couple of Nazi sites somewhere on this planet, without being aware of it.

If I learned one thing from this community in seven years, it’s that you don’t storm out of the room banging the door. Escalating this was probably a good idea; now let’s hope DreamHost and WordPress.com and other hosts will chime in on the conversation.

For what it’s worth, “no discrimination…” and “no incitement to violence or promotion of hate” do perfectly fine for me.

So then what happens when the sponsor hosts a website that advocates discrimination, encourages violence and promotes hate? That’s exactly what we are talking about here.

I don’t think there should be any action taken against hosting companies that host political sites of any ideology, far right, far left or somewhere in the middle. To me, the difference is when they actively encourage action against specific ethnic groups and promote hate against anyone who is not white, Christian or heterosexual.

I wholeheartedly agree with Birgit’s statement. If we cross this line as a community, where do we stop? The sponsor in question has been a long time supporter of this community and WordCamps all over the world.

Furthermore, if we draw this line, how do we include this in the vetting process for our other sponsors? If we’re going to allow this camp to exclude this hosting company based on the fact that they’re hosting certain websites, we have to exclude all hosting companies that host sites we don’t agree with. This seems like a huge burden to put on the heads of WordCamp organizers.

I’m also curious about how this will look from a budgetary standpoint. Since the global community sponsorship comes in one lump sum to each camp, how is this camp’s budget going to reflect that they aren’t receiving funds from this particular sponsor?

Some of the hardcopy material probably has a higher distribution, than some obscure website. Would you ban the paper maker from sponsoring a WordCamp, or the lumber company providing the wood to the paper maker? Or the ink manufacturer?

I think papermaker would be more analogous to WordPress itself, the delivery mechanism. In my view, holding a paper manufacturer accountable is different than holding a publisher accountable.

To continue the paper metaphor, a printer who takes on contracts to print material for anyone, and doesn’t discriminate would be more congruent in this argument. They may choose to print, or not to print based on the content., They may not always know when they agree on a price what the content is going to be. But at the end of the day, they printed the objectionable material, they do have some responsibility for disseminating that information.

So, if a book publisher who published a thousand books without issue but whose next publication was a hate filled Nazi manifesto, would we accept their sponsorship?

Agreed. Local camp organizers should have a say in where we choose to accept money or not. We’re already told that certain people and companies are not allowed to speak at or sponsor the events that we lead the organization of, but I don’t see how we should also have to accept taking on sponsors that the local community would choose not to.

Additionally, would it be considered cultivating an in-crowd mentality by not pointing out who we’re discussing (after this issue came up by questioning that company publicly on Twitter and other social media, and @iamjolly has done so for us)? Or would it be viewed more as a pile-on by making it clear in discussions like this who is being discussed and the reasoning behind it?

I’m trying to decide if it’s silly to play a pronoun game while assuming that everyone in the discussion already knows the details behind this request.

To be clear, the hosting company and sponsor is DreamHost. The websites that started this off belong to the American Nazi Party.

NewYorkerLaura
4:47 pm on August 10, 2018

The former debate coach in me worries about the proverbial slippery slope, and an even slipperyer (is that a word?) if left to each community.

Do we ban a sponsor for hosting the sites of governments, political parties, religious organizations, educational institutions, social justice movements, etc. who though they have done nothing illegal under US law (I believe if they engage in illegal activity their hosts boost them), but they engage in speech and activity that many consider offensive?

Thirty years ago had the internet existed as we now know it would we be talking about banning Act-Up and Gay Men’s Heath Crisis, fifty years ago would it have been Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and the Black Panther sites, a hundred years ago would it have been Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cary Stanton’s sites?

Obviously, we aren’t the US government, rather a private enterprise, so we can set barriers, but I think these barriers are best set within the jurisdiction of what goes on inside a WordCamp rather than police who those sponsoring/running/volunteering/attending a WordCamp transact business with.

This doesn’t prohibit individual members in the WordPress community from telling anyone respectfully “I don’t use your product and here’s why.”

In the end, I sort of see this along the lines of banning books in a library, or hauling art off a wall. There are things I find repugnant and reprehensible. But I’d rather a free society and web have those ugly things in the light of day so people can see and judge just how monstruous they are.

If you are going to use the slippery slope argument, would you also take it all the way and say that you would have no problem with a hosting company that hosts a website that promotes violence against children or women?

The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it turns into an all or nothing matter. You can’t say you are against a website that promotes violence against women but not be against one that promotes anti-Semitism.

NewYorkerLaura
4:25 pm on August 11, 2018

If you’re talking active incite/advocate to violence, I believe that’s an actual threat and illegal and a TOS violation. If I found such a site I’d take it up with the hosting company.

Anyone who’s been on my Twitter feed knows I have strong feelings in regards to #MeToo and #LGBTQ+ rights, if anyone wants a full elaboration on that, find me at any public event and I’ll be happy to discuss.

However abhorrent I may find views of such sites like Church Militant, Fix the Family, Westboro Baptist Church, Louis Farrakhan, actual Nazis currently currently running for US office whose misogyny and bigotry run deep…I could go on listing…I think it’s an issue best directed to a web host as a potential/actual consumer of their product. I believe the best way to have a direct effect on this issue is one-on-one engagement as a consumer as to why you will or will not do business. It directly lets them know how much business they are losing, and pushes them to update their TOS to disallow such hosting. It’s also why this can’t be about one host hosting one site.

It doesn’t mean I personally support any of these groups. It means I chose a different way of combating them. Some folks march in the streets to combat injustice, some call their representatives, some engage in acts of civil disobedience. I’m simply stating that I don’t believe WordCamp Central being the arbiter of this is the way to go.

If anyone (as clearly you do) feels that they cannot upon moral conviction attend/run a WordPress/Camp related event because you see the connection differently than I do, I have no issue with that. We simply don’t agree.

At this point, I don’t think there is much more I can add to the conversation, only replying here because I was asked a direct question. I think where I stand and why is clear enough.

Answering to original question on the list of expectations we set for sponsors: I think it is good and does not need any changes.

What comes to previous comments and discussion, I strongly agree with Jonathan, Birgit, Casper, Jennifer and Laura.

How could hosting companies or any other companies ever identify clients/sites/use cases that are fascist, racist or any other ways inappropriate? Who even defined inappropriate? For someone its something else that for someone else. There also is always a way around the automated recognition, it will be found and used.

As a project, WordPress encourages a free speech. Our bill of rights even states 1st freedom as "To run the program for any purpose.". For any purpose. I think it is more than obvious that it includes also opinions, ideas and perspectives that all of us do not agree on. If WordPress as a project states so, how we could in any situation expect our sponsors to do otherwise?

Prior censorship is not a solution. As Jonathan said, most hosting companies have specific terms and conditions of what you can use their services for and if you are found in violation of these terms they reserve the right to remove you from their platform. Most infuelcal way is to report content, not to censor based on assumption. If we or any company start to assume things beforehand, are we any better than the opposite?

Part of the open source ideology, at least for me, is that the tools developed can be used for good and bad both. It's just about us, good persons, ruling the bad persons with our words and deeds – not with a banning them from using the open source tool.

There will always be sponsors that do something the whole community does not like. If we comb thru every site where Jetpack is used, every WooCommerce powered store or domain that GoDaddy has ever sold, there will be something that everyone does not like. Not to mention local level sponsors. There also comes the question: what is too much? who determines it from our side? single person isn't good, but neither is raising a big debate for every single sponsor that does something upsetting from viewpoint one or few individuals.

As Jennifer and Laura said, we might end up in slippery slope with unpredictable consequences.

How could hosting companies or any other companies ever identify clients/sites/use cases that are fascist, racist or any other ways inappropriate?

I think that would be onerous, impractical, and certainly not a responsibility of every individual organizer.

That said, we’re not talking about how to ensure all sponsors are in compliance. We’re talking about what to do when one has been determined by organizers to not be in compliance.

Just as I’d thought that having the onus on local organizers to vet that all products sold by organizers were in compliance with GPL was impractical and an undue burden, having to accomplish the impossible task of vetting all sites on a hosting company is an undue burden.

I totally agree that neither local organizers nor central should be tasked with vetting companies to see who they do business with. That said, when an issue is identified, I think it should be addressed by both the company and WordCamp. DreamHost has yet to acknowledge this and until this discussion started, WordCamp was ignoring the issue as well.

To clarify, it sounds like you are saying WordCamp and are referring to WordCamp Central, correct? AKA, the central organizing body of WordCamps in general, but not individual WordCamps.

A particular WordCamp has chosen not to ignore the issue, and the question that I’d like answered at the end of the discussion window is what privileges will be granted to the organizing committees of individual WordCamps to determine whose money they should or should not accept. WordCamp Central already has rules in place for some sources that we cannot accept money from, but I don’t think the topic of who we must accept money from has been addressed yet.

Sal Ferrarello
5:46 pm on August 10, 2018

At an individual level, I’m completely on board with engaging (or not engaging) with hosting companies based on who else they choose to do business with. At a government level, I’m fully against favoring companies in this way (which works out well because the law prohibits this). Between these two extremes, I see a spectrum of power and the more power an entity wields, the less I want to see them make judgements this way.

Based on the social power I see in a WordCamp, I’m against using that power to penalize companies who host content that is legal but offensive.

There has already been a lot of great discussion and input in the comments here. I think it’s important to emphasize some of the points that already been mentioned by others, perhaps in a slightly different form:

Just because a hosting company allows a “hate group” to use their service doesn’t mean that the hosting company actively supports that group’s message. A hosting company may have no legal grounds to deny such a group the use of their platform. And a hosting company should also not be denied the ability to sponsor a WordCamp for that reason. Allowing the use of their platform is not the same as promotion.

The term “promotion of hate” is very nebulous. Like Laura mentioned above, I’m very concerned with the slippery nature of such a classification in general. What constitutes “promotion of hate”? That’s a rhetorical question of course. Every person reading this most likely has certain beliefs that they feel very strongly about, and they would be quite passionate in defending or debating. But someone who holds differing beliefs might consider their position to be “hateful”. While there are certainly specific ideals or beliefs that a majority of people would consider hateful, it’s very hard to draw a line when the classification is so subjective.

With those things said, here are my responses to some of the questions from the original post:

Is there a point at which we might decide to exclude a sponsor because of a business policy or practice that is not addressed by our list of expectations?

I think we ought to err on the side of caution in such a decision. I think the answer to this out to be a definitive “no”.

beyond our current standards, are there additional reasons that businesses, groups, or people should not be accepted as WordPress community sponsors?

No. And more specifically, I would say that the phrase “promotion of hate” ought to be removed from the language in the official handbook. Not because we should promote or accept hatred, but because it’s too subjective to enforce, and enforcement is a very slippery slope.

A WordCamp organizing team has requested to drop a global community sponsor from their 2018 event because the company hosts some websites owned by hate groups.

It’s easy for me to see why this is such a tough call to make, and I empathize with those struggling to make the right decision. I don’t think there’s an easy answer. But there are some considerations on this issue. WordCamp organizers get to make the decisions for their event that they are planning. However, they’re still planning an official WordCamp, accepting funds from the foundation, and conforming to standards about how the WordCamp runs. Part of that means there are certain decisions they don’t get to make. If they want more leeway, they could organize an unofficial WordPress event instead.

With such a large community, it’s impossible to get 100% agreement. Ultimately that means that we will all experience discomfort at times, and we will all have decisions that we disagree with. That doesn’t mean that we can’t still work together for the benefit of the community as a whole.

The term “promotion of hate” is very nebulous. Like Laura mentioned above, I’m very concerned with the slippery nature of such a classification in general.

I think there are some sites that most people can agree do promote hate. The websites that started off this debate are all sites from the American Nazi Party. Is there anyone who believes that Nazis are not a hate group?

I think we ought to err on the side of caution in such a decision. I think the answer to this out to be a definitive “no”.

As I said to Laura, I would accept this as a valid position if you would make the same statement about a website that promotes violence against women. Otherwise, you are not advocating for a definitive no.

I think there are some sites that most people can agree do promote hate. The websites that started off this debate are all sites from the American Nazi Party. Is there anyone who believes that Nazis are not a hate group?

I completely agree. My real concern is the direction in which this takes us. It’s very few steps to go from “most people can agree” to “the 51% agree” to “those in power agree”.

I’m not saying we should support Nazis. I’m saying we should be extremely careful in setting precedents like this. Because in the end, the real crux of the issue is that the host does not “promote” such ideals just because they host one or more sites with such content.

As I said to Laura, I would accept this as a valid position if you would make the same statement about a website that promotes violence against women. Otherwise, you are not advocating for a definitive no.

There are numerous situations where a hosting company has no grounds, whether in policy or legality, to remove content that they disagree with. To me, it’s not a question of the specific disagreeable content. Promoting violence in any way is more abhorrent in my mind that promoting nazism. The question at hand has to do with the host itself.

My argument really boils down to the fact that the host itself does not inherently promote the content of every site that it hosts. In addition, the host may have no legal grounds to terminate a relationship with any given customer of theirs. For that reason, the host should not be penalized simply because of the views of their customers.

I appreciate all the comments and understand some of the points. I would be interested to know if people who have commented so far think the American Nazi Party promotes hate or not. Is it debatable as to whether they do or not? Do you think it was wrong for Apple, Facebook, etc. to stop giving a platform to Alex Jones as they did this week?

Because I live in South Africa and my country is still living under the affects of the legacy of Apartheid, that because of the colour of my skin I sill benefit from while others suffer in poverty, I fully understand the importance of taking a stand against those who would promote hate towards their fellow humans.

Our code of conduct expresses our inclusivity and I don’t think this is the platform to expect the members of the community to speak out against such groups.

As a matter of fact, as a Meetup organiser and WordCamp organiser, our code of conduct actually expressly forbids me from preventing anyone from attending any WordPress events, even someone who I might think is part of a hate group. Should they express their opinions at my events, breaking the code of conduct, I would take the appropriate action, but it would not be right for me to prevent them from attending.

The question is however not about whether we as a community think a certain website promotes hate or not, the question is whether or not a business that provides a service that such a group chooses to use should be held accountable for their client’s propaganda.

As I mentioned above, I don’t believe hosting companies have that privilege. I do not know the laws that govern hosting companies in the US, but in South Africa a hosting company has no legal right to inspect their client’s content. Only if said content is reported to the host, and falls within unacceptable guidelines, can that host legally request that content be removed. I would imagine that in the US and other parts of the world it would be the same.

Otherwise web hosts would have the right to censor any material they see fit at their own discretion, which is the slippery slope previously mentioned.

As for the Facebook and Apple situations you mentioned, I have no prior knowledge of these events, but I can only assume that these groups were reported to both platforms enough times that they took action. It’s not like either platform made a decision up front to block these groups from the get to.

I don’t think the laws are the same here in the U.S. Private hosting companies can have their own terms of service. Some hosting companies, for example, have decided to stop hosting certain hate sites when they become known to them. A host stopped hosting the Daily Stormer last year because the site’s content allegedly incited people to commit violence.

Sal Ferrarello
7:59 pm on August 10, 2018

Without a doubt the American Nazi Party promotes hate and if they wanted to sponsor a WordCamp I would expect their sponsorship to be rejected because of their “promotion of hate”, which is a phrase I think should be kept in the handbook. While it is disappointing the hosting company is hosting a site that promotes hate, I think the argument they are promoting hate by hosting a site promoting hate is going too far.

Do you think it was wrong for Apple, Facebook, etc. to stop giving a platform to Alex Jones as they did this week?

While I personally enjoyed seeing Alex Jones removed from Apple and Facebook, he was removed due to violating their terms of service. If the hosting company in question has terms of service that the site in question is violating, then I think it is worth bringing up with them. Even if this is not the case we can individually choose not to host with them. As individuals we can encourage others and take to social media to let the host know that we will not host with them and why. Each individual can then choose to participate or not. I do not think WordCamps should do this.

I’d like also to point out that this conversation about changing our expectations for sponsors touches a very large scale of different sponsors, WordCamp organizers and fascist/racist/hate/you-name-it groups, even though this discussion has started and brought to the table because of one individual case with one sponsor. That’s why I would like us to discuss more the exceptions as a whole, not about one group and what we think of their ideology.

I understand, but I think it is worthwhile to bring up the hate group in question so that this does not just remain a theoretical discussion. I am not a member of one of the groups this group targets. I have empathy for those who are and who have expressed their feelings and concerns on Twitter.

I agree with a lot of what has been said starting with Bridgit, so I won’t repeat those points. There are a couple of things to think about.

If we leave it up to the individual WordCamps, what’s to say other WordCamps will not be influenced by their actions? Or dare I say, even pressured in the sense of “if they are taking a stand, then we should”.

Secondly, since a large percentage of WordCamp sponsors are hosts, then should we research each one to see if they are also hosting such sites? Where do we draw the line? I am guessing with all the craziness out their on the internet, odds are we would find this happening elsewhere.

Personally I despise these sites, but I as stated over and over again in the comments, how far can we take this?

rickg
8:40 pm on August 14, 2018

“Secondly, since a large percentage of WordCamp sponsors are hosts, then should we research each one to see if they are also hosting such sites? ”

This is a red herring. It’s meaningless in this context. The issue at hand is “If we find that the host is, in fact hosting a hate group, what if anything should be done?” No one is proposing that each word camp proactively do research to vet everyone and raising that is a nothing more than a whataboutist distraction.

NewYorkerLaura
8:31 pm on August 10, 2018

I think Daily Stormer was tossed for illegal activity, which I believe is against every company’s TOS. I think CNN or perhaps Time covered this in a story. That said, of course the Nazi movement in particular and fascism in any form is repugnant

I think it’s best served programmatically for individuals to tell any given company why they will no longer/will not ever do business with them rather than the program be placed in a position of defining if a hosting company is promoting hate speech by hosting a website any more than Yahoo, Google etc. are for equally responsible indexing the site, the phone company for listing their numbers, Staples for selling them paper… I’m with Sal on this one. By all means take it up with the sponsor. I think an onslaught of individuals addressing a specific company about their specific TOS has merit, but I don’t think this is a program level decision.

I also see a problem with a slippery slope of the sponsor today and it’s a plug-in author or an attendee tomorrow.

Please allow me to chime in. I feel like I started some of this recently, as I noticed a man wearing white nationalist “colors” at a supermarket the other day. It reminded me about how that hosting company never acknowledged my complaints a year or more ago about them hosting Nazi sites. That company is also a “fine, upstanding member” of the WordPress community.

DreamHost—let’s just name them at this point, please—has chosen to continue to host multiple hate-related sites that are counter to any spirit of what a WordCamp or other inclusive community is about. It’s clear that they’ve been notified about this. I’ve personally notified them numerous times, along with others over the past year or two with much more frequent calls to action more recently.

The issue I see is this: How does a community like WordPress and WordCamp reconcile receiving a large number of sponsorship dollars from DreamHost while it *actively* ignores a community’s request for them to not support (i.e. provide hosting services to) hate-related groups that conflict directly with the sponsored events’ codes of conduct?

DreamHost is free to update their terms of service to prohibit hate groups, those that promote discrimination, and those that promote violence and extermination against entire populations of people. They are not a government entity, and they are not suppressing free speech if they decide to cut off services to groups that espouse hatred. Alas, they choose not to.

DreamHost may host these sites if they want, but I challenge WordPress and WordCamp members/organizers to make an official decision about whether or not associating with those that passively support Nazis, White Supremacists, and any other brand of hate group is acceptable.

To me, the Nazi-DreamHost-WordPress association is not acceptable. I find it wholly unreasonable that people continue to take an “academic” or “devil’s advocate” argument which does nothing to stem the flow of hatred we all see increasing in our world. In fact, that only emboldens those that wish people of color, of different religions, of different sexual orientations, and with disabilities either an unequal status in society or outright extermination.

I am a person who got involved with this as soon as I read about it from Robert. I am the person who raised the issue with the local WordCamp for which I was an organizer. I also wrote an email to WordCamp Central and the response told me they were more interested in trying to sweep this under the rug rather than deal with it. So in that sense, I am happy to see this discussion going on here.

I understand the question of how a hosting company or WordCamp Central would know if a hate group and I would not think of trying to hold anyone accountable for something they did not know about. However, that is not the case here. DreamHost does know they are hosting websites from the American Nazi Party. They have known for a while now and have chosen to ignore the issue.

WordCamp Central has known for more than a week now and until now, has refused to comment publicly on the issue.

I see the slippery slope argument and the problem I see with that is that if you are going to use that argument, you have to be willing to accept all websites, no matter what they say, promote or encourage. I think most people can see a difference between websites that promote varying political or ideological views and those that encourage discrimination and violence against specific groups of people based on their race and religion.

I also saw a conflict between WordCamp’s emphasis on diversity and accepting sponsorship money from a company that provides a home for websites that encourage the elimination of the very people that diversity message is designed to welcome to WordCamps.

As someone else said, we can choose not to do business with a company that makes choices we disagree with. As I see it, we can also choose not to be part of organizations that make decisions we disagree with. That’s what I have chosen to do.

I have resigned as an organizer for the local WordCamp I was working with. I have decided not to attend another WordCamp later this month. I have also decided that I will never attend another WordCamp or have anything to do with any WordPress activity as long as DreamHost remains a sponsor.

I was also particularly disturbed that WordCamp Central made no comment on this, and that Matt Mullenweg’s reaction was to block me from his Twitter feed rather than say anything in response.

Just to clarify: “WordCamp Central” is the name used for both the website and the folks on the WordPress global community team who focus on the WordCamp program (answering questions sent to support@wordcamp.org, providing support to meetup and WordCamp organizers, etc.).

I am someone at WordCamp Central, and some of the other folks who’ve commented here are, too. We have lots of ways of referring to the same people, and I realize it can be a little confusing.

It’s disappointing to hear that you thought, based the email you received last week from support@wordcamp.org, that anyone was trying to sweep this under the rug. As you can see from this discussion, our goal is to work transparently and openly.

Thanks for the clarification, Andrea. But yes, I did think that the email indicated you were trying to sweep this under the rug based on the email response I received and the lack of response anywhere else. It really looked like a case of “Ignore it and it will go away.”

As a follow-up on my edited comment earlier, I’d really, really like to invite all Global Community Sponsors to share their policies, principles, and thoughts about how they handle (or not handle) hate content amongst their client/customer base, and why.

Here is a question for those of you who are using the slippery slope or free speech arguments … Would you welcome a speaker who wanted to give a presentation on using WordPress to build a website that would recruit members to a white supremacist hate organization?

If you say no, why not? Is it wrong to provide a platform for someone like that to speak, but OK to accept sponsorship money from a company that gives people like that a platform from which to speak?

If, as I was told by WordCamp Central, this is a free speech issue and WordCamp does not want to stifle free speech, why not allow such a presentation?

Would it be different if the group who wanted to give the presentation was also a sponsor?

What if the American Nazi Party wanted to be a WordCamp sponsor? Is there a difference between accepting their money directly and accepting it through a third party?

By the same token, what if the a hate group used the WooCommerce and Yoast plugins to power their site, would we expect those pieces of software to change their license to prohibit such usage and stop using their sponsor money? This is the slippery slope that is being discussed. Where do we draw the line?

By the same token, what if the a hate group used the WooCommerce and Yoast plugins to power their site, would we expect those pieces of software to change their license to prohibit such usage and stop using their sponsor money?

I do not expect any company to change their license or prohibit any usage. That is not the question. The question is if WordCamp should accept sponsorship money from them.

This is the slippery slope that is being discussed. Where do we draw the line?

How about we stop using the words “hate group” in this discussion and use the real words for this situation: Nazis.

I did ask that question and I’d be interested to hear your view point.

I have already resigned from being an organizer for a local Word Camp over the acceptance of sponsorship money. I am also not attending another Word Camp next weekend, and have vowed to never participate in any WordCamp activity as long as WordCamp accepts sponsorship money from DreamHost.

I think it is hypocritical of WordCamp to promote diversity and inclusion, yet accept sponsorship money from a company that does business with Nazis and other groups that encourage discrimination and violence against the very groups the diversity program is designed to welcome.

I also find it hypocritical that WordCamp claims to hold people accountable through its Code of Conduct, yet accepts money from sponsors that violate that very code.

I find it ironic that this discussion is taking place on the one-year anniversary of the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. I guess there are some “very fine people” among the American Nazi Party, right?

It is not a personal attack. It is framing the debate. The group we are talking about are the very people who were marching in Charlottesville with torches, chanting “Blood and soil” and “Jews will not replace us.” Let’s keep this in context instead of veering off into an ideological discussion.

When you heavily imply (if not outright state) that anyone who does not share your opinion in this debate is either a nazi or a nazi-sympathiser, then that is most certainly a personal attack. It is clear that you have decided that anyone who disagrees with you agrees with the ideology of the American Nazi Party (or at least has sympathy for their cause), which is why you see this as ‘framing the debate’. Thinking that way, and stating it as such, is both unhelpful to your arguments and deeply insulting to everyone involved here.

I guess there are some “very fine people” among the American Nazi Party, right?

You didn’t outright say it, but this (amongst other things in your comments here) is a thinly veiled dig that equates people who are using the ‘slippery slope’ or ‘free speech’ arguments with the type of people who would claim that there are ‘very fine people’ in the American Nazi Party. I am not American, but I follow the news enough to know where that quote comes from and what you are implying.

If I am wrong, perhaps you could clarify why you made that comment in the context of this thread?

Sorry, but when it comes to anti-Semitic and racist groups, I do not believe honey is warranted.

I keep thinking back to Woody Allen’s “Manhattan.” There’s a scene in which they are discussing an upcoming Nazi march in New Jersey. One of the people in the scene talks about the “devastating satirical piece on the Op-Ed page of the Times.” Allen’s character urges them to take bricks and bats to explain things to the Nazis. After a discussion over whether satire or force is better, Allen’s character replies back with “Physical force is always better with Nazis.”

This is a very personal issue to me. When I was a kid, I met relatives of friends who had numbers tattooed on their forearms from their time in concentration camps. I had relatives I never met who died in Germany during WWII fighting the Nazis.

When I see American Nazis marching in the US and chanting “Jews will not replace us,” then I look at my wife, I have a difficult time with the idea that their blind hatred is directed at her and others like her.

With that in mind, I think it is important to keep this all in context and not drift into an abstract, ideological discussion. Honey is great if you are discussion a new logo or a policy change. When it comes to racism and Antisemitism, I vote for vinegar all the way.

The other thing that makes this very personal to me is that when I came to my first WordCamp in December 2015 (US in Philly), I was concerned that I would feel out of place because I was so much older than most of the other attendees.

It did not take me long to realize that my fears were unfounded and that it was an extremely welcoming group of people that appeared to have no problem with people of any age, ethnic group, gender identification or orientation, disability, etc.

I bought into WordCamp’s diversity and Code of Conduct so much that I volunteered for the 2016 Word Camp US, then volunteered for every local WordCamp with a few hours driving distance.

I really came to believe in the community and the program. Now, the idea that WordCamp would accept sponsorship money from DreamHost has left me very disillusioned and disappointed, to the point that I can no longer be a part of it in any way.

It is difficult for me to give up something that I enjoyed and felt to be a part of. But I see this as WordCamp bending its principles in exchange for dollars and that is where I draw the line.

2. What is to be gained by:
–a. Forcing the ANP off DH? They’ll just go elsewhere.
–b. Removing DH as a sponsor?

3. The WordPress mission is to “democratize publishing” … last I checked there wasn’t a footnote attached that said something along the lines of “of speech we agree with.”

4. Additionally the 4 freedoms listed under the WP Bill of Rights includes this as number 1– “The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.” (emphasis mine)

4. Free speech allows it to be out in the open, to expose bad speech for what it is. When you suppress this, it’s harder to eradicate it. Evil thrives in darkness.
–a. I’m aware this isn’t a 1A issue because the gov’t isn’t attempting to limit, but the spirit of the freedom is what’s important here. Exposure of bad ideas, to be debated and refuted.

5. Sunshine is always the best disinfectant.

And to be clear, I’m not here advocating for ANP, I think they’re horrendous. But I am advocating against a totalitarian approach to speech regulation just because someone doesn’t like something. The approach has failed through history and as others have pointed out, it becomes a slippery slope of arbitrary decisions. Where do you draw the line? What if someone advocates against something you’re a fan of? What recourse do you have?

I think a great example of this mechanism of limiting failing in practice is what happened with Publix a few months back. Parkland students held a “die-in” to protest a group that Publix had donated to. As a response, Publix didn’t limit donations to just that group, they suspended all charitable giving. That’s the type of unintended consequence at play here.

And I’ll say it one more time because I think it bears repeating– sunlight is the best disinfectant. Exposure of horrible ideas for what they are always works better than suppressing them into darkness.

2. What is to be gained by:
–a. Forcing the ANP off DH? They’ll just go elsewhere.

I am not advocating anyone try to force ANP off of DH. That is DreamHost’s decision.

–b. Removing DH as a sponsor?

Remaining true to the WordCamp Code of Conduct and the spirit of diversity, rather than appearing that both only apply to people and companies that do not bring money to the table.

4. Free speech allows it to be out in the open, to expose bad speech for what it is.

Free speech does not mean that anyone can say whatever they want without consequence. Yes, the American Nazi Party is free to say whatever they want. However, there is no right for them to not have any consequence for what they say.

Yes, DreamHost can do business with anyone they want and provide a platform for anyone to say what they want. But that does not mean they can do it without consequence and that others cannot refuse to do business with them or associate with them as a result.

Finally, the organizers of WordCamp can accept sponsorship from whoever they want, including hosting companies that provide a platform for Nazi organizations. Again, that does not mean they can do it without consequence.

What are the concrete actual actions the we should take as a community in this individual case? Loudest commenters are just stating how horrible this is, but not thinking about the consequences or saying what they would like to do. Obvious point is end the sponsorship of this one company, but what to do with numerous WordCamps listing the company as a sponsor in website, print materials etc. There is multiple concrete things to take a notice. If we ban the company from sponsoring, should we also ban every employee they sponsor from contributing the project as a whole? One could say, that they are also helping this hate group by working in the company.

That is also what I have to say about this situation. We are talking again about one individual situation after Andrea asked if we should change our expectations in general. What does this conversation about one situation give for us as in the name of larger discussion affecting possibly multiple sponsors and WordCamps? Nothing fruitful in my opinion.

A couple more remarks around peace, inclusivity, tolerance and the right to free speech and our duty to defend it. Bare with me, I am fully aware that I am writing the 62nd comment now…

Right after the second world war, my grandfather spent a year in jail because he was a member of the Nazi Party during the Third Reich. And so were a lot of people. The Nazi-party had about 6 Million members. Some where my grandparents neighbors, family members and aquaintances, in their community. They needed to make peace with each other to rebuild their destroyed cities, towns, bury their dead and bring home the men who were prisioners of war in foreigh countries.

Although, the German Constitution strongly based on human rights and democracy, there exists one exception: Swastikas, Hitler’s Mein Kampf and other Nazi Propaganda are censored. As a Holocaust denier you would go to jail, if you traveled to Germany.

And then, in the early Nineties, the Internet happened, and as an early web worker I studied the American discussions around the Indecency Act vs. Free Speech. What also happened was that German Neo-Nazis, Old nazies and White Power groups now published their stuff on the Internet. In German, but hosted on American servers, outside of the German jurisdiction. So I and a bunch of other web workers had to make a choice, do we want to lobby for Germany to censor the Internet? It was controversial, but for myself, I rather argued no-censorship, than giving other countries, like China, Singapore and dictators in Africa the right arguments to stifle free speech in their countries, too. The Internet would bring the world together in free exchange of ideas.

I grew up at the borders of the Cold War. We just had our Velvet Revolution in Germany, we just dismantled the other regime big on Censorship in East Germany. The only way to counter act the filth and the anti-semitism and white power stuff was to flood the Internet with accurate historical information available about what really happened. However the German institutions, were not yet on the Internet, they didn’t have the talent nor the resources to digitize the information. German web workers put their heads together teamed up and started posting original content on how the Jewish ‘race’ became the outlaws, the gas chambers of Auschwitz and other concentration camps, the Resistance movement in Universities and in the Military. I was in contact with a Jewish survivor in the US, who gave us his poems from that time. A German scholar, published his book about the state funded economic plunder of Jewish assets, on our site. The Shoah Project and other sites grew and grew. It took about another 3 years until German historical Institutes, museums and governmental institutions were ready to join us. I rather give readers a choice than suppressing information. People can think for themselves and figure it out.

Today, in the US, “55% of white people feel that racism against white is as big of a problem as against people of color”. That means the chance is high you already met a racially sceptic today. And I am pretty sure some of them attend WordCamps.

We, in this country, in this community, won’t move the needle on inclusivity, if we go after our own friends. We won’t make a difference and come together as people if we unfriend everyone on Facebook and walk away.

So this is a plea to be more thoughtful about free speech, as there are lot of countries where people need to be afraid to voice their opinion. Defending free speech means defending it for those whose opinions make my skin crawl.

And calling them racist and walking away, will not change the minds of the 55%. We need to find a way to persuade them and accompanying them on their path to tolerance. They will not go on the path, unless white people help white people.

So getting all worked up about hosting companies, whose only fault is to host the internet web pages for legal groups, might make us feel better. Please let’s be serious. Let make a real difference and engage in conversations with racially skeptics in our own lives.

The call for banning, deplatforming and what not is for me a just a reminder of all the little totalitarians that seem to exist within too many people. And where there is a little totalitarian there soon comes a little murderer in the making as well that calls for groups of people to die. We see this today in the US and elsewhere where left leaning folks call out for white people and white men to die. Which fuels the white supremacy groups and even radicalizes people that were just ordinary people but got fed up. Perceived victimhood is a great motivator for hate on both the left and the right.

Calling for banning of services, people, companies just strengthens the hate on many sides. It also gives more publicity to that you wish to hide.

We should value free speech, freedom of thought, be anti-censorship, anti-blacklisting based on political views (even being against feminist or socialism is regarded as hate by a few), we should embrace market capitalism and the freedom of movements of goods and service.

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love… Our aim must never be to defeat or humiliate the white man, but to win his friendship and understanding. — Martin Luther King Jr.

My grandmother’s family was murdered in the Holocaust. My grandfather was 17 when he took his rifle in 1941 and disappeared in the mountains to join the partisans against the Nazis and their NDH puppets. And with this in mind, all I can think of is: are you out of your bloody minds?

For me WordPress has always been about inclusion. It does not matter if you’re Muslim, Catholic, white, brown or green. If you respect others in the community and behave yourself, you get to be a part of the community. Even if you’re a reprehensible human being out in the wild, were showing you a different path. And I’ve seen that this inclusion does have positive effect on the people.

In this sense I don’t distinguish between DreamHost hosting a Nazi site, Google (WordCamp Europe 2018 sponsor) getting ad bucks from the alt-right, and your buddy Joe removing malware from an anti-Muslim site, and charging 4x the standard fee. You just don’t bring that crap with you to the community meetups, and that’s it.

If y’all want to fight the Nazis, there are plenty of other, more productive ways you can contribute without weaponizing WordPress.

WordCamp is a community-organized event, and we (the community) have no obligation to respect anyone’s free speech rights. Hate groups have no place here.

Seems to me that DreamHost has a policy that is in conflict with ours – they allow hate groups to publish, and we have an anti-discrimination code of conduct. Have we at least brought this to their attention?

In my opinion, WordPress / WordCamp should speak with institutional authority on this, to the extent that we can muster it (i.e., by consensus). I understand that anyone can download WordPress and use it for any purpose – that doesn’t mean WordCamps need to promote webhosts that allow this trash.

Going back to the beginning of this long discussion:
No hosting company is subscribing to anyones beliefs just by hosting a website. The way the Internet works is that you can only have free speech, if the hosting companies are not censoring who gets to go on the Internet. The same as the cable companies and the email services providers, they are per definition apolitical.

And yes, we as a community should feel a need to defend the rights of free speech around the world and in our backyard. Who, if not we?

As long as we feel morally superior to others, we are not inclusive.

The WordPress community has its share of misogynistic sparks, and I am sure there are some Republicans among us, who have to fight a totally different fight in search of their souls now. As the political spectrum is going in the US, we need to start banning and policing a larger majority of our neighbors and friends. Do we really want to become that kind of community, that we police what other people think, or we think they think?

Has the societal divide, the fascists want so much for this country, arrived at the door step of the WordPress Community?

Quite frankly, the ANP hasn’t had so much attention all year that it has now received from us. Aren’t we actually promoting them now?”

For me, the reality is that WordPress – as software and as a community – values many things: inclusion, representation, diversity, and freedom, at the minimum. So saying a hosting company like DreamHost doesn’t have values aligned with WordPress isn’t honest or fair.

This isn’t a DreamHost thing.

It’s a people thing. We’re all ignorant about things. We’re all in a process of getting better. And we all have a default approach to things that was created in an older context. When my dad talks about people from other cultures I cringe because he’s using terms that are no longer appropriate.

To remove a sponsor is to limit their ability to be in the conversations and to learn. Does anyone know what is going on inside DreamHost? Has anyone evaluated how long it might take to get policies to be reviewed and decisions to be made?

In the end, I think the guidelines Andrea mentioned at the top are sufficient. I also think we shouldn’t scapegoat a single company. And I think all the hosts are going to have to grapple with their own policies – which isn’t something that will change quickly.

I’ve replied over the weekend to several others, but not made my own reply yet. Now that this has been open for several days and discussed, I’ve noticed a few recurring themes, as well as a few questions that I have that have not yet been addressed.

Recurring themes that I’ve taken note of:

“WordCamp” being used to describe the entire organization only, and not individual, locally organized Camps.

The idea that individual camps would have the onus placed on them to police all hosts for offensive content, just as the onus has been placed on individual camps to police all speakers and sponsors for 100% GPL compliance.

The idea that the decision has to be taken at Central level: completely remove a sponsor from all Camps, or none at all.

Questions that I hope can be addressed over time:

Will a process be setup to allow individual Camps, with the input of local organizers, choose who to accept or not accept funds from?

If such a system were setup, would that affect the ability for those individual Camps to accept other portions of global sponsor funds, and would that affect any agreements that the foundation has with sponsors, current or future?

If they have not been addressed because we are still in the commenting period, or because the situation with that individual camp is being handled privately between Central and the individual camp, that’s understandable. But I do hope that while standards are being set and guidelines created or updated, clear languages on the privileges granted to local organizers relating to sponsors is created.

The discussions around a specific organization, specific host, and specific situation are valuable, but ultimately the end result is new or updated guidelines and processes for WordCamps at the foundational and local level. If no change is made I would still consider that a specific stance being taken that would be worthy of inclusion in rights and responsibilities documents sent to future organizers.

Name, logo, and company description on all WordCamp websites in the region

If we allow individual camps to choose who to accept funds from, the benefits need to change for the following years. And if the quoted benefit is removed and local decisions about from who to take money, the question is will it make global community sponsorship too skinny, unbeneficial and unpredictable from sponsors viewpoint?

In a related matter, WordPress and Automattic made the news today. So it seems the official WordPress policy is that untrue content is A-OK no matter how much it hurts people. Imagine … your kid is murdered and WordPress provides the platform for people to say it never happened and is all a fake story.

It’s important to keep in mind that WordPress is not Automattic and Automattic is not WordPress. Automattic is a company that is deeply involved with WordPress (the open source project) and the WordPress community. Yet, all three are not one and the same. This can be especially confusing to people new to WordPress overall. As we know the difference, it’s valuable to be clear about these separations.

I’d ask us all to focus on the immediate purpose of this conversation (on this blog post): To discuss what makes a sponsor incompatible with our program?

As members of the WordPress community, it’s not our role to tell businesses how to write their terms of service. It is our role to determine what makes a sponsor incompatible with our program.

I’m hopeful that we can stay focused on the immediate topic as it is both emotive and challenging.

I understand what you are saying, Liam. However, it was Automattic that issued this statement for the Times article:

“Posting conspiracy theories or untrue content is not banned from WordPress.com, and unfortunately this is one of those situations,” Automattic said in a statement.

That tells me that even if they are separated from WordPress.com, the fact that they made the statement shows that Automattic sets the policy.

I also understand your point when you say it is not up to us to tell business how to write their terms of service. However, I do believe it is up to us to tell them when we believe the terms they have set are wrong.

This issue has become more than just about sponsorship to me. As I have read through the defense of the Dreamhost sponsorship, it seems to me to be the perfect example of white privilege, in that people are willing to ignore what might hurt others because it has no effect on them.

But now that I see Automattic’s statement, it makes me feel even worse about WordCamp, WordPress and Automattic.

Perhaps I am wrong but I do think WordPress.com might take a different stance if I were to use it to create a website full of untrue content about Matt Mullenweg. Would they support me and let it stay or take it down?

I doubt it would stay given that when I tried to contact him on Twitter, Mullenweg’s response was to block me. That leads me to believe he would be extremely hypocritical if I were to create a website full of lies about him.

Sorry, but this entire matter has been very disillusioning to me and every day it has gone on has made me feel even worse. Others may want to ignore it and go merrily along their way, but I find the hypocrisy among the three groups to be alarming.

Jim

rickg
7:43 pm on August 14, 2018

Here we go, making excuses for Automattic. If we would condemn this stance from another host, we need to condemn it just as vociferously when it’s Automattic. And, while it’s accurate to say they’re not the same thing as WP, let’s not pretend that 1) Matt doesn’t have near-dictatorial powers over things that go in core (uh… Gutenberg anyone?) or 2) that when a host called WordPress.com says this it doesn’t reflect on everything WordPress.

Automattic gets to be treated like any other host when they are just like any other host and WordPress.com is named something else. Until then, they’re strongy associated with WordPress in a way that no other organization is.

I don’t see any relation with the linked news article or discussion on Automattic’s or Matt’s role to what Andrea asked about changing the current expectations for sponsors. That is a completely different discussion and should take place somewhere else.

Please, let’s keep this discussion on track and talk on a subject of the opening post.

That tells me that even if they are separated from WordPress.com, the fact that they made the statement shows that Automattic sets the policy.

So that nobody will get confused or get the wrong idea what is what, let’s clarify some facts: WordPress is an open source platform everyone can use and do their business with, also often referred as WordPress.org. WordPress.com is a WordPress hosting service/platform which is owned by Automattic. Automattic is a company founded by WordPress(.org) co-founder Matt. WordCamp is an event series organized by WordPress(.org) community of volunteers, not by WordPress.com or Automattic.

I also understand your point when you say it is not up to us to tell business how to write their terms of service. However, I do believe it is up to us to tell them when we believe the terms they have set are wrong.

You are free to do so as an individual. Heck, I even encourage everyone to do so if they feel that terms of service could be improved or company could do better in any other area. But in my opinion, we as a community, are about WordPress – not about politics, ideologies or our own opinions forced into the mouth of hundreds of thousands of members in our community or any company.

Others may want to ignore it and go merrily along their way, but I find the hypocrisy among the three groups to be alarming.

I don’t see anyone wants to ignore this discussion, as it is very important for the future about our expectations for sponsors. This conversation has 83 comments after I post this and is 3rd most commented post since community P2 was started in 2012.

Once again, please let’s keep this discussion on topic and constructive. We do not achieve anything if we let the discussion slip from the subject, start making comments on something that does not relate to this subject or start accusing individuals. The subject is hot and people clearly have strong feelings about it, that’s totally fine. But maybe everyone should consider taking a few days break from it or at least read their comments a few times before actually sending it.

I don’t see any relation with the linked news article or discussion on Automattic’s or Matt’s role to what Andrea asked about changing the current expectations for sponsors.

I think this puts the WordCamp position in a telling light. After all, it is difficult to be against accepting sponsorship dollars from a hosting company that does business with Nazis when your own organization does business with hate groups that put stories out there claiming that the Sandy Hook shootings were staged or that Hillary Clinton ran a child sex slave operation out of a DC pizzeria.

After all, how can you be against DreamHost when you are just as bad, right?

Please, stop trying to pretend that WordPress, wordress.org, Automattic and WordCamp are all different organizations that have no ties. They do have ties and the actions of one reflect on all.

As for not making this political, I am sorry but as soon as wordpress.com began hosting right-wing hate websites, or WordCamp began accepting sponsorship dollars from a company that does business with the American Nazi Party, they made it political.

It is not only political, this is about dollars too. And to me, it is clear that Automattic, WordPress and WordCamp, or any other iteration you want to throw in there, puts dollars first.

But hey, if the Nazis and other right-wing hate groups won’t affect you, why give them a second thought, right?

Maria Martinez
2:49 am on August 15, 2018

I’ve tried to read most of the comments and concerns. Although I find hate groups offensive, I have a slightly different perspective. I study psychopaths.

Addiction to power, manipulation, pathological lying and scapegoating are the basic signs I look for. Many of these signs are covert, hidden under the guise of “the victim”. This is easy for them because they really are motivated by a deep seated fear and mistrust of authority.

As others have pointed out, these people exist, and shoving them back into the dark web won’t get rid of them. They are more easily studied when they’re allowed a platform that’s visible to all. But that’s my point: we should be studying them. Not just me, but everyone should be studying them. It’s important though, to immunize ourselves when we take on the observation of evil. Every care should be taken to protect ourselves from the trauma that occurs when in their presence, even online.
Just listening to lies, especially audacious lies, can leave one feeling emotionally dis-regulated. (As Rod Rosenstein described) Even when we understand that this is EXACTLY the PURPOSE of the lies, the in-congruence between the falsehoods and the fervent adhesion to it, can create cognitive dissonance in the listener.

We don’t know how to fix this problem yet. We can never learn how to fix it until we study it. We can’t study it by burying it. Perhaps the solution is similar to how we regulate porn (for all the good THAT does) where we put a black label and a disclaimer on it, allowing only those over the age of 21 to engage and strongly advising against engaging unless the person has a prophylactic such as a scheduled therapy session within 12 hours or a yoga session. No, I’m not kidding.

As for how to judge whether it’s dangerous. Take off your blinders. Our fore-bearers DIED fighting against white supremacists and nazis.
To say that it’s not a dangerous ideology is to say that they died for nothing.

It is not only political, this is about dollars too. And to me, it is clear that Automattic, WordPress and WordCamp, or any other iteration you want to throw in there, puts dollars first.

Well, I don’t see the situation like this.

Having this conversation isn’t putting dollars first. Considering all viewpoints, impacts and hearing the views of as many community members as we can isn’t putting dollars first. Considering changes to our expectations for sponsors isn’t putting dollars first.

It is about trying to find the consensus as we do with everything in this community.

We can’t just hop and do some decisions without having a discussion first, every time we feel something should be done or changed in this community. If we would, some individual or small group of individuals would make calls that represent hundreds of thousands of community members – that’s called dictatorship. Now we are having an open discussion on the subject and trying to find the consensus on what we should do or should we at all.

As I said in my earlier comment, I understand that the subject is hot and people clearly have strong feelings about it. That’s okay. I also understand that some of us would like to see actions taken immediately as the subject is close to their hearts and they do have a clear idea of what to do. That’s not how this community works, we discuss about things and make decisions and changes to our practices after the discussion – even if it would be frustrating sometimes.

But hey, if the Nazis and other right-wing hate groups won’t affect you, why give them a second thought, right?

Please do not jump into conclusions because someone does not take a clear stand.

They do affect me indirectly and I have strong opinions. In Finland and Nordic countries as a whole, some ideologies that I personally do not agree with, have gathered support and publicity in past few years – as they have also in the US. I fight back to them, but also select my fields where and where not to do that to gain the best impact.

I fight back to them, but also select my fields where and where not to do that to gain the best impact.

I am not as selective as you may be. To me, any time you do not fight against Nazi groups, you are normalizing their presence in that situation. I do not want to normalize them in any situation at all. That’s why I take a hard line attitude against them and anyone else who encourages discrimination and violence against specific ethnic and religious groups.

I would personally like to thank all past, present, and future companies for sponsoring WordCamp events around the globe. Without these sponsorships, smaller events would not be possible. These sponsors allow more localized events – which bring us new faces to the community.

As lead organizer of WordCamp Las Vegas 2015, I struggled to find sponsorships. I couldn’t imagine what it would take to raise the entire budget itself. Those that are fortunate enough to not need the sponsorship or can pay a higher ticket price, please dont spoil it for those who cannot.

These companies are making it possible for us to continue our education and further our involvement in WordPress, for a fraction of the cost. My career would not be possible without WordCamp San Diego, Orange County, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and Sacramento. All of which received sponsorships from numerous companies who have been in the spotlight in one way or another.

Sure, a new company could replace the sponsorship from Dreamhost today. But let’s not forget that Dreamhost stepped up when it mattered most. It’s because of them we have other companies willing to take their place. They believed in this from early on.

If a WordCamp/organizer wants to refuse sponsorship from any party, I think they should have that right to do so. I also think it’s on the organizer to find additional sponsorship to keep ticket prices down. If the community, Local or Global, feels the same way they can donate to support/sponsor the camp and the cause. That’s fair and reasonable.

We could also stop expecting event swag from each camp. That would allow the camp to spend/need fewer funds or focus the funds on more important areas of the camp and in return need fewer companies to sponsor.

We personally know/interact with Smart and Caring people working at these hosting companies. I do not think they would work for the company if the values were other than ideal. We should use our community to go after the WEBSITE, not the HOST. I’m sure they would be on our side.

Brett Dunst
6:39 pm on August 21, 2018

Hi everyone!

I work at DreamHost. First of all, thanks for the feedback. The comments here are filled with many diverse viewpoints and several well-reasoned arguments and believe me, we’ve been reading all of them.

I wanted to explain why our Acceptable Use Policy is what it is, and why it hasn’t really changed at all since we founded DreamHost in 1997.

We really see all web hosts as infrastructure providers, and we draw a clear distinction between hosts and social networks. There’s a legal component to this, too.

We’re based in the United States and operate according to its laws. That means that all of our customer data is accessible to law enforcement through due process. We have learned in our dealings with law enforcement that prohibiting specific types of content often results in that content and its hosting being moved to darker corners of the web where legal oversight of any kind is effectively non existent.

Passing judgement on the value of any customer content would take us out of “service provider” territory and put us into “publisher” territory, and that too comes with its own risks. Restricting speech from one group would put us in the difficult position of having to restrict speech from similar – but not necessarily identical – groups.

Assessing speech – at all – is a tremendously slippery slope and is subject to many shades of gray, compounded by individual opinions and experiences. The best content policy in the world is still subject to individual interpretation, and what we want more than anything is to treat all of our customers and their content equally. Maybe we’re being overly optimistic, but we see net neutrality and content neutrality as going hand in hand. Keeping the web open is important to us.

We, as an industry, need policies that are clear-cut and easy to enforce fairly – subjectivity should never enter into any part of the equation.

We don’t feel comfortable telling anyone that they have fewer rights to speak online than they do offline. We’re an infrastructure provider. We’re a Managed WordPress hosting provider. We are not a social network. We don’t promote, endorse, or exploit our users’ content.

There are, of course, limits to the type of content we’ll allow on our servers. Our Acceptable Use Policy and our Terms of Service prohibit illegal behavior and content already. And while we’ve championed the “free speech” approach to content, there are limits to protections provided by the First Amendment. Incitements to violence within one’s DreamHost account, for example, are protected by neither the First Amendment, nor our own AUP/TOS.

We’ve stood for online user rights for a very long time. You may remember last year we fought back against the Department of Justice when they inappropriately attempted to obtain data pertaining to a DreamHost customer’s site – a site that was created to help coordinate protests on President Trump’s inauguration day. The content of the site was legal, but potentially incendiary for anyone opposed to what it represented. In this case our status as a content-neutral service provider, not a publisher, afforded us legal protections that strengthened our position and helped to shape our argument that the DOJ’s move put citizens’ 1st and 4th amendment rights at risk.

At DreamHost we’ve got a “Values Squad” that meets regularly to discuss and understand how our eight core values are being put into practice, and to ensure that we’re living up to our vision and mission statements. Our Values Squad has absolutely visited the subject of controversial content, including hate speech, on a number of occasions. A lot of what gets said internally about this topic has already appeared in the comments here, so at the very least we can all agree that it’s a complicated situation with no easy answers.

We did put up a blog post when this issue first came up earlier this month that explains why we believe our current content policy is important, and why we’ve taken this stance. There’s a bit more info in there:

We want to continue to actively support the WordPress community, and we see sponsorship and support of WordCamps as being a big component of that. We’ve met so many of you, heard so many of your stories, and have had some truly wonderful interactions at our booth at past events. We’d love to continue doing that for as long as we can, and will support whatever WordCamp policy changes (if any) may come out of this discussion.

Thanks for commenting here and pointing to the blog post, which I had not seen. I appreciate your legal position, and remember the case that you referred to. I also thank you for your support of WordCamp, and – for the record – I am not in favor of “canceling” DreamHost as a global sponsor.

It’s important that we be able to discuss these things, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. An interesting future offshoot to this will be the evolving definition of “incitement to violence” as it happens online: threats, harassment, conspiracy, and how this cyber mob activity can lead to physical and psychological violence against people. But that’s for another thread, and another decade of jurisprudence on “protected speech”.

And while we’ve championed the “free speech” approach to content, there are limits to protections provided by the First Amendment. Incitements to violence within one’s DreamHost account, for example, are protected by neither the First Amendment, nor our own AUP/TOS.

I can accept your position and have never argued that Dreamhost does not have a right to do business with whoever it wants. But please do use use the First Amendment as part of your argument.

The First Amendment simply does not apply. The First Amendment prevents the government from preventing a person from speaking their opinion. The First Amendment does not require private businesses to provide a platform for others to express their opinions and ideas.

In addition, the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to free speech without consequence.

As I said, I do no dispute DreamHost’s position and believe it can do business with whoever it wants. But at the same time, I am not comfortable participating in a community that accepts money from DreamHost. I believe that DreamHost’s business practices put it in conflict with the WordCamp policy on diversity.

Because of that, I resigned as an organizer for WordCamp Philly. I asked that my name be removed as an individual sponsor because I do not want my name to appear on the same website as the DreamHost logo. I also did not attend WordCamp Lehigh Valley this past weekend, even though I had already paid to attend. I also will never attend any WordCamp as long as WordCamp accepts DreamHost’s money.

So, my disagreement is not with DreamHost and its decision to do business with the American Nazi Party. My disagreement is with WordCamp’s decision to accept your sponsorship money.

I am not an American or European, but I am well versed with the history of hate groups in general and also this particular one.

Nazi website are deplorable. I understand and even identify greatly with the sentiment here. I also think this is a political issue and can see relevance of using collective arguments to achieve a better, tolerant and inclusive world.

But we are discussing here something that works for not one WordCamp or a few WordCamps but all WordCamps and the WordPress community as a whole.

Whatever decision we make has to be relevant and relatable to any WordCamp all over the world. This is where the decision we make as a precedent, stands on a slippery slope.

How do we block sponsors if they have hosted sites by other hate groups in other countries? What happens when our local organisers point to governments and regimes? For example, there are several people in the United States and around the world who are strong critics of the the usage of drone in combat by the US government. Should organisers at some WordCamps be allowed to block agencies or individuals that work with the US government? And that was just an example; several governments (I can think of almost every single one of them) have victimized groups all over the world. How do we suggest to these organisers that their objections are less valid than another particular group?

This can have the potential to unravel the entire global sponsorship program. Some folks might not have an issue with that, but for someone like me from India, a country which has over 12 WordCamps taking place now, my perspective is that most of them would not happen without the Global community sponsorship program.

I think as a Global community we should have some editorial line which we should not cross. I think we should drop a hosting company if it was wilfully and intentionally allowing and hosting content with direct calls for violence, abuse and criminal activities. That said, I strongly believe that WordCamps are a great place to engage such companies and about how their platforms are being used by hate groups. I do not think a blunt tool like dropping a sponsor, drumming them out of the program, is a useful thing to do.

So what can be done?

We have a fine tradition in open-source of subversion. Interacting and using the WordCamp to communicate your displeasure or issues with some particular stand they might have taken, is a good way to use the platform and engage with sponsors to help our community space improve.

I think we need a sharper tool like subversion (ie: interacting and using the WordCamp to communicate your displeasure with a particular sponsor). Subversion is a fine open-source tradition, and we should work on the principles of interaction even if we are looking at something as drastic as dropping a sponsor. The sponsors should have the time, space and enough dialogue to work on their ToS — or whatever changes they might need to make — instead of being put under a siege.

“But we won’t make the Internet fairer or safer by pushing platforms into ever more aggressive efforts to police online speech. When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier.”

There are a lot of people in the world who think that some current western governments are hate groups and promote violence and war. Using the same path… are we going to ban those companies who are hosting their websites, providing their email services, etc? And who is going to draw that line?

No, an email provider, internet provider, hosting provider, etc. are not promoting hate for letting users use their services, they provide a neutral public service. And that’s the difference with a dictatorial regime, we don’t want private corporations deciding what legal content we can read and can’t read in the internet. That’s dangerous and scary.

Being advocates of an open internet is not easy, but it’s right.

Answering the question, no, I don’t think we should change our current standards for accepting sponsors, I think it would be a wrong decision and we could be opening a door with unpredictable consequences like weaponising this open source project.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to join this discussion and share their views and thoughts. It’s not always easy to express yourself with grace and courtesy on issues that you feel strongly about, and I am especially grateful to all of you who took extra steps to keep your comments polite and on-topic. As promised in the original post, I’m now closing comments on this thread.

Discussion summary

While I intentionally framed the question to be broad (because I worried that talking about an individual case wouldn’t take into account the global nature of our programs), we ended up talking about the individual case that prompted the discussion. Some questions about how we’d implement any such change globally were also raised.

If I were to summarize the two main perspectives expressed in this discussion, to my eye they are:

Hosting companies who provide hosting to hate groups — possibly a particular hate group, the American Nazi Party, is important here — violate the community team’s code of conduct.

Hosting companies are not promoting the content they allow customers to host on their servers.

While we don’t necessarily make team decisions based on majority rule, it’s worth mentioning in this summary that a larger number of comments supported the second perspective than the first. There also were a few comments that seemed to recommend changing the global sponsorship program, to allow for more independent choice on behalf of local organizers.

Next steps

We’re still working with the community that brought this question to light, firming up the details of a solution that will work for everyone.

There will be a call for volunteers next month, to work on the 2019 edition of the global sponsorship program, and I encourage folks to join that group if they’re interested (and have a high tolerance for spreadsheets).

A note for historical context: the first few years of the global sponsorship program allowed each WordCamp to choose which global sponsor(s) they wanted to accept, and because for 2 years no camps turned down any sponsors, we dropped that aspect of the program.

But really, thanks for taking part in this discussion

I think the most important work that the community team does for the WordPress open source project is to bring people closer. Dialogue and discussion are some of our most powerful tools to find the common ground we need, to be able to work together.

Community Deputy Program

Community Deputies are a team of people all over the world who review WordCamp and Meetup applications, interview lead organizers, and generally keep things moving at WordCamp Central. Here are some useful links about the program: